TorilMUD Forums

War-monger hawks in the Democrat Obama administration have threated the Gaddafi regime, who doesn't even have any WMD, with military action. Hostile, imperialist aggressor steps have been taken, including sending US warships to threaten the people of Libya with compliance.

Libya's majority (85%) export is oil. NO BLOOD FOR OIL! Obama the power-hungry war monger must be opposed before it is too late!

lol

Patriotic United States war effort being undermined from within by Communist Republicans! If you suspect your neighbor might be a Red, don't wait! Call your local authorities! Let's help keep our boys safe over there!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ara ... story.html

It is too late. The Imperialist Pig Obama has dragged us into another war that we don't want for oil that is not worth the bloodshed! Cruise missiles have been launched from US ships that have injured an unknown amount of civilians with no apology forthcoming.

Obama's claims that this is about protecting civilians as he launches weapons of war against them. He's decimating the national power so that we can dominate their country and suck them dry of resources! These lies come without a public justification for war!

JUST SAY NO TO IMPERIALISM, SAY NO TO THE DNC 2012, SAY NO TO A WAR WE DON'T WANT, CAN'T AFFORD, AND DIDN'T ASK FOR

Support our troops by bringing them home!

*Note: this thread does not necessarily reflect my personal views.

Teflor Lyorian wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html

It is too late. The Imperialist Pig Obama has dragged us into another war that we don't want for oil that is not worth the bloodshed! Cruise missiles have been launched from US ships that have injured an unknown amount of civilians with no apology forthcoming.

Obama's claims that this is about protecting civilians as he launches weapons of war against them. He's decimating the national power so that we can dominate their country and suck them dry of resources! These lies come without a public justification for war!

JUST SAY NO TO IMPERIALISM, SAY NO TO THE DNC 2012, SAY NO TO A WAR WE DON'T WANT, CAN'T AFFORD, AND DIDN'T ASK FOR

Support our troops by bringing them home!

*Note: this thread does not necessarily reflect my personal views.

Teflor you're unpatriotic and a traitor! No freedom fries for you!

Oh wait, this is 2011 and not 2003-2004, so suddenly we're supposed to "flip-flop" just like the Republicans.....

torkur wrote:Oh wait, this is 2011 and not 2003-2004, so suddenly we're supposed to "flip-flop" just like the Republicans.....

What are you talking about?

Talk about rushing into war. When GWB was president we had Congressional hearings, televised UN hearings, primetime speeches, etc. There was a national debate about whether or not it was prudent to invade Iraq. And now with Libya - I didn't even know that the US was seriously considering military action until it was already a done deal. And I keep pretty up to date on current events. WTF?

It looks like this is an issue for some of the more ideological Dems as well:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

Even the leftist sites are up in arms this week... the humanitarian liberals are questioning why we care so much about Libya and not Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, or any of the other revolting countries in the region.

Oh right... oil interests.

I wonder if the Nobel committee wants their peace prize back.

kiryan wrote:I wonder if the Nobel committee wants their peace prize back.

Criticized as a weak leader for NOT attacking: Check
Criticized as not being peaceful because he attacked: Check

Kiryan in a nutshell: Check

Criticized as a weak leader for NOT attacking: Check

== reading fail and complete mischaracterization of the thread I started. He's being criticized as a weak leader because of how he acted not because he didn't attack. He has had a confusing approach with open dissent within his own cabinet. I actually like aspects of his decision, but it is as I said, a completely different type of "leader" that America has seen in its presidents... and it would've been a lot more leaderesque if it had been more expedient.

A) he said Khadafi must go, but did nothing for 2-3 weeks.
B) did not act decisively... what exactly is the point of the no fly zone... several days late from the rebel's perspective?
C) act on his own, he had to wait for everyone else's approval
D) never stood up and took a position
E) did not even bothered to make the made the case to the American people


Criticized as not being peaceful because he attacked: Check

== reality bites. He could've turned down the nobel peace prize, he could've stayed out of the whole thing. give me one reason why WE have to be helping enforce the no fly zone? France and Britain were out in front on this, why can't they go it alone for once? The biggest problem is he campaigned on ending the wars, accepted the nobel peace prize, and then gets involved in this conflict with NO CLEAR REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE....

Ragorn wrote:Even the leftist sites are up in arms this week... the humanitarian liberals are questioning why we care so much about Libya and not Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, or any of the other revolting countries in the region.

Oh right... oil interests.

At least with GWB there was a national debate on the topic followed by a Congressional vote. Over here it was just... done.

And here's the thing.. if there was a serious concern that what was happening in Libya would have disrupted oil supply - THEN, I might actually see the point of this whole thing. The way it was playing out, Gadhaffi was about to take back control of the entire country, thus ensuring that the supply would not stop. After all, the oil always flowed in the past when Gadhaffi was in power. But alternatively, we now have a situation that almost guarantees that there will be oil supply issues - as there will likely be a protracted civil war now that one side is not allowed to win decisively and none of the foreign corporations that handle oil production in that country are going to want to get in the middle of it.

Here's an even better response to your criticism Sarvis.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599206049400

Does Barack Obama know what he's doing?

The question isn't purely rhetorical because Obama's response to the cascade of global crises over the past several weeks has often seemed mystifying. He supported pro-democracy forces in Egypt and nudged out a regime the U.S. had backed for decades, but has been unwilling to do the same in Bahrain or Yemen. In Libya, his Administration was against armed intervention to stop Muammar Gaddafi before Obama was for it. American warplanes carried out the initial wave of strikes on Tripoli, but Obama's aides insist that Washington is merely following the Europeans' lead. U.S. officials were reticent for days as the nuclear crisis in Japan worsened, then declared the situation to be even direr than the Japanese government had let on.

As the crises accumulate, Obama has remained the picture of detached serenity, which only agitates his critics more. Kori Schake, a centrist former Bush Administration official, charges that Obama "just isn't willing to bear much freight for other peoples' freedom." The Economist's Lexington column asks, "Has he, at any point in his presidency so far, demonstrated real political courage?" and is unable to find an example. David J. Rothkopf, a national-security expert who worked in the Clinton Administration, says Obama's leadership style resembles nothing so much as "the planet's master of ceremonies - nudging, exhorting and charming, but less comfortable flexing U.S. muscles than many of his predecessors.

...
By all accounts, Obama was reluctant to authorize the use of force and only agreed to do so when it became clear that Britain, France and members of the Arab League were prepared not just to join a military campaign but also help lead it.

kiryan wrote:By all accounts, Obama was reluctant to authorize the use of force and only agreed to do so when it became clear that Britain, France and members of the Arab League were prepared not just to join a military campaign but also help lead it.

PS: The Arab League is complaining about American colonialism in Libya. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ara ... ml?hpid=z3 (Washington Post - not Fox news - so it's true!)

kiryan wrote:C) act on his own, he had to wait for everyone else's approval
D) never stood up and took a position
E) did not even bothered to make the made the case to the American people

Wait, so he waited for everyone's approval AND didn't bother to make the case to the people? Not to mention to the Democratic party that is currently criticizing him for the attacks? Are you fucking kidding me?

He just farking pissed everyone off. The Republicans are going to be having a field day, and the Democrats will be right behind them yelling and screaming. He didn't wait for anyone's approval in this country. Never stood up and took a position? Again: Missiles have been launched. He said Khadafi had to go, and now he's launching missiles without congressional approval. How is that not taking a position?

For fuck's sake there's an actualy, honest to God good reason to be criticizing Obama here and you're stuck with your own fairy tale reasons.

kiryan wrote:By all accounts, Obama was reluctant to authorize the use of force and only agreed to do so when it became clear that Britain, France and members of the Arab League were prepared not just to join a military campaign but also help lead it.

Yes, and? Do you get that we should be working WITH the world community? A big part of the criticism leveled at Bush is that he acted without really cooperating with other governments.

look sarvis, you can say try to put words in my mouth as much as you want, but I am criticizing Obama for HIS LACK OF LEADERSHIP, not for intervening / not intervening. THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS. If I have to lean a direction, it would be against intervening here, but his lack of leadership and confused messaging is VERY CLEAR. Even the liberals can see it.

And Bush had various degrees of international support for his wars. Less so for Iraq, but he had plenty of authorization for Afghanistan. Maybe not unanamious, but not only did he have support he had their troops on the ground.

and if I really wanted to take Obama to task... I'd take him to task over his comments as a senator where he condemned the use of US military force unless American's interests were directly in danger of imminent harm without the authorization of congress... specifically discussing bombing nuke sites in Iran. Show me the harm to American interests in Libya that are not as great as the potential threat of a hostile nation acquiring nuclear weapons. If anything our interests in Libya have been harmed by the intervention.

kiryan wrote:look sarvis, you can say try to put words in my mouth as much as you want, but I am criticizing Obama for HIS LACK OF LEADERSHIP, not for intervening / not intervening. THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS. If I have to lean a direction, it would be against intervening here, but his lack of leadership and confused messaging is VERY CLEAR. Even the liberals can see it.

That's just it, you're saying he's a weak leader because he waited for approval before doing anything. He clearly does NOT have approval for attacking Libya.

*back to all seriousness*

What I don't understand are the air attacks on ground forces, like tanks, and of Qaddafi's palace when the UN resolution called for a no fly zone.

Yeah that's a little bit problematic.

Also - it seems like everyone involved in this escapade has a different take on whether the ultimate goal is to remove Gadhaffi from power. What DO they want exactly? Libya divided into two separate territories in some sort of protracted low grade civil war? A complete end to hostilities.. with.. Libya divided into two separate territories indefinitely? Do they want to ensure a rebel victory... without putting boots on the ground? I don't see the point of the whole thing and I don't like the way we went to war without any public debate or comment. Maybe Obama just wanted to show us the proper way to go to war - when France agrees to it. Maybe Sarkozy should just be made the Secretary of Defense.

Basically Obama jumped the shark. He is rightfully getting attacked from all directions.

Don't blame me! I didn't vote for Obama!

(if you didn't notice, back to sarcasm. not that I did, but it's the way I put it)

Sarvis wrote:

kiryan wrote:look sarvis, you can say try to put words in my mouth as much as you want, but I am criticizing Obama for HIS LACK OF LEADERSHIP, not for intervening / not intervening. THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS. If I have to lean a direction, it would be against intervening here, but his lack of leadership and confused messaging is VERY CLEAR. Even the liberals can see it.

That's just it, you're saying he's a weak leader because he waited for approval before doing anything. He clearly does NOT have approval for attacking Libya.

fuk dude you are dumb. waiting for and seeking approval was 1, ONE, aspect of his lack of leadership and being weak. ONE thing could be overlooked, but his leadership here is confusing AT BEST.

Reconcile "gadhafi must go" with "the goal is not removal of gadfi"... saying something vs just keeping his damn mouth shut. Reconcile getting the UN's support for military intervention but not THE US CONGRESS (even bush bothered to do that). Reconcile acting in Libya vs Baharain, Yemen, Darfur, Sudan, mynmar? Reconcile his Secretary of state and military aides basically saying act quickly or not at all... then acting not quickly.

--

The resolution said any and all means necessary to prevent civilian deaths. Clinton did an amazing job getting such a broad resolution. Course it may have been because of Obama, but still impressively open ended resolution from a relatively reluctant body..

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-p ... power-unde

Obama quoted during his campaign as clearly saying that a President does not have the authority to act militarily without Congressional consent unless he is doing so in national self defense.

http://www.breitbart.tv/kucinich-slams- ... -rhetoric/

Can't believe I'd ever be posting a video interview of Dennis Kucinich in complete and utter agreement...

* War is bad.
* Madmen dictators are bad.
* Imperialism is bad.
* Slaughtering civilians is bad.
* Exploiting other countries is bad.
* Overspending on the military is bad.
* Leaving civilians undefended is bad.
* George W. Bush was bad.
* John McCain would have been bad.
* Obama is bad.

I see no contradiction in any of the above statements, and find the situation to become more complex as they play against each other. I'll provide an interesting link I found on the subject, which outlines one potential end game for our new war.

"Having read this article, I have revised upwards my priors on the likelihood of partition [into two states, East and West] as the result of the current conflict, whether or not Gaddafi falls."

I would just like to say that I totally believe the Libyan government's reports about civilian casualties resulting from coalition actions, and if I owned a news station, I would report it as fact because it helps my liberal, anti-dictator-Bush agenda.

Todrael,

I have my doubts that anything worthwhile will be accomplished from this latest millitary action. That being said, I certainly recognize the possibility that it will be a succesful and justified venture. I read that link you posted concerning Libyan unity and it reflects other things I have read in the past about how many of the national boundaries in the Middle East are artificial - causing all sorts of ethnic/tribal issues within countries. Perhaps it would indeed make more sense for Libya to be split in two rather than ruled as a single nation by a strongman. I'm definitely willing to explore that possibility. The problem here - the big problem - is that nobody had any opportunity to explore anything because we all woke up one day to find out that the millitary was committed towards this new endeavor - without congressional hearings/consent or even any sort of national dialogue. Imagine the outrage if we woke up one day and all of a sudden we were at war with Iraq - with no prior warning. That is the really big problem with this situation. President Obama had no right to unilaterally commit US troops into this sort of engagement - potentially a long term one with no ramifications for our national security. If he wanted this war he should have taken it to Congress and the American public, stated his case, and let the chips fall where they may.

Yes, Bush showed us all that interventionism is wrong. The French totally had the right to chose the Nazis as their dictator.

Corth and Todrael, I think the ideological / racial / cultural boundaries between groups are logical boundaries... but I don't think that is what the world government wants... you get conflict when you have homegenous populations in competition against each other. You want fewer countries fewer distinct populations... especially in the middle east... but even in places like France where the gypsies and muslims maintain their own insular communities.

Peggy Noonan opinion piece, aptly titled "The Speech Obama Hasn't Given".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 51286.html

Back when Bush started offensive operations in other middle eastern nations, I remember quite a few people here, like Sarvis, that said that Bush was starting a war just to distract the public from the issues.

I think it stands as evidence of the bias and intellectual dishonesty that they have not raised the same complaint against Obama when US coalition bombs started falling on Libyan ground troops just months after his party took a 'shellacking' at the polls.

Did Bush proceed with military operations in compliance or in defiance to the UN?
Did Obama proceed with military operations in compliance or in defiance to the UN?

Welcome to the thread Ragorn. :)

Now explain how UN approval means that you don't need Congressional approval per the US Constitution.

Seriously, where have you been? Apparently, the opinion of one anti-American French president means more to you than US and her allies.

Corth wrote:Welcome to the thread Ragorn. :)

Now explain how UN approval means that you don't need Congressional approval per the US Constitution.

Did we declare war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Granted the War Powers Act is controversial. Though there has been general consensus for some time that a President cannot commit the US armed forces into a conflict without the consent of Congress unless there is an imminent threat or existing hostilities. President Obama, who knows a thing or two about Constitutional Law, said it best:

President Obama wrote:"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Sounds like he's got 60 days. If we're not out in 60 days, then I call shenanigans.

Ragorn wrote:Sounds like he's got 60 days. If we're not out in 60 days, then I call shenanigans.

It didn't take you sixty days to call it on Bush.

I think the big distinguishing factor is that
1. the evidence is not made up.
2. ths war is being sanctioned by several other countries rather than just the united states saying 'k we're going in no matter what you guys say'.

John is awesome. Freedom loving rebels take to the streets because America may or may not be behind you!

Also startling absent from this debate are the calls that this is all about electoneering politics and kick backs. about serving the interests of his backers and his VP's former companies. If Bush's gardener had once said there is oil in Iraq then it was clear the war was only about his gardener's interest in Iraqi oil.

no, no one is looking at Obama's leftist advisors who conveniently published a George Soros backed think tank doctrine called "responsiiblity to protect" which happens to fit Libya scenario exactly.

No one is tlaking about a president who believes Gas should cost $8 a gallon and then happens to stumble into situation after situation that gets us there.

A) climate change legislation
B) stimulus money for green crap
C) Shutting down of as much drilling as possible in America
D) Intervention in a country that supplies oil to the US

And don't even get me started on the powder underneath these protests.. the price of food... which is up because of ethanol subsidies.

amena wolfsnarl wrote:I think the big distinguishing factor is that
1. the evidence is not made up.
2. ths war is being sanctioned by several other countries rather than just the united states saying 'k we're going in no matter what you guys say'.

Would you happen to be talking about Afghanistan, for which Bush was harshly criticized by the left?

Or are you talking about Iraq, where the evidence was laid bare for the UN, the US, and its allies - just the conclusions made by both the US and the UN were wrong. Iraq was also 'sanctioned' by 'several other countries': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Nati ... _coalition

So, what was the distinguishing factor again?

amena wolfsnarl wrote:I think the big distinguishing factor is that
1. the evidence is not made up.
2. ths war is being sanctioned by several other countries rather than just the united states saying 'k we're going in no matter what you guys say'.

With respect to your first point, the question I have is - evidence of what? I haven't seen any sort of evidence produced. I'm assuming you mean evidence that Gadhaffi was about to kill thousands of civillians - which is the basis of this war, right? How about evidence that these rebels are not aligned with our mortal enemy, Al Queda? Has any such evidence been produced? The only thing I saw was a rebel commander admitting that many of his fighters are indeed aligned with Al Queda. Or perhaps you mean evidence that these military actions have a clear goal. Oh wait, France says the point is to kill Gadhaffi and the US says it's to enforce the 'no fly zone'. Evidence that involvement in Libya furthers the interests of the US people? Evidence that you won't create a situation of perpetual civil war? Hrmm...

With respect to your second point, my question, again, is how international support, through the UN or otherwise, gets rid of the President's Constitutional obligations to get Congressional consent. But let's assume the President indeed -legally- committed us into a war. And let's also assume that somehow it is better to go to war when everyone agrees with you (which I guess would have made WWII unacceptable). How do you reconcile your conclusion of international support with the statements of Vladimir Putin of Russia, and various high level leaders in Germany and China criticizing this Libyan war? Are we discounting Russia, Germany, and China because France agrees with us? And for the coup de grace, it's been widely reported that there were more coalition partners in the second Iraqi war (GWB's war) than Obama has with this Libyan escapade. So then are we to conclude that GWB's Iraqi war was more legitimate? Using your logic of course..

Teflor Lyorian wrote:

Ragorn wrote:Sounds like he's got 60 days. If we're not out in 60 days, then I call shenanigans.

It didn't take you sixty days to call it on Bush.

Actually, if you check my post history, it wasn't until well into the Iraq engagement that I turned against the war. I gave Bush considerably longer than 60 days, I gave him about 18 months. Good try on the selective memory though.

Here, I found you one from March 2003 where I was making fun of people protesting the war: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10725

Free bonus in that thread: Sarvis agreeing with me.

The way I see it, there are two possible reasons that we are going to war in Libya:

1. Humanitarian concerns
2. Regime change.

If there are any other possibilities I haven't thought of I would like to hear them. Those are the only two I can think of.

So let's take Obama's stated reason for getting involved. Humanitarian concerns. The question begging to be asked is why we would stop with Libya. There are atrocities being committed all over the world. Genocide in Sudan, for instance. Oppression and government sponsored starvation in North Korea. Heck, a case could be made for an invasion of Syria. Supporters of Democracy are being slaughtered there as well. So why Libya?

With respect to regime change. Well that certainly opens up a whole can of worms doesn't it? If we support the overthrow of regimes that are not sympathetic to our interests - well, how is that any different from the Bush Doctrine?

So in light of this let me offer up a hypothetical situation. Imagine that an armed group of rebels in the US decided to do roughly what the Libyan rebels did? They gather in a US city with their guns and decide to attack and remove US millitary installations. They organize and move on to other US cities where the sympathetic locals join in their cause and also overthrow Federal control. Do you think for a second that this would be tolerated by the US government? Of course, the US military is ordered to quell this unrest by any means necessary. Gunfights break out and thousands are killed on both sides. Would the President of the US be considered a war criminal for killing his own people? Would it be acceptable for the other nations of the world to intervene on behalf of these rebels? If so - then Abraham Lincoln is Gadhaffi, and France along with the rest of the world should have intervened in the US Civil War. Right?

Ragorn wrote:

Teflor Lyorian wrote:

Ragorn wrote:Sounds like he's got 60 days. If we're not out in 60 days, then I call shenanigans.

It didn't take you sixty days to call it on Bush.

Actually, if you check my post history, it wasn't until well into the Iraq engagement that I turned against the war. I gave Bush considerably longer than 60 days, I gave him about 18 months. Good try on the selective memory though.

Here, I found you one from March 2003 where I was making fun of people protesting the war: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10725

Free bonus in that thread: Sarvis agreeing with me.

My bad, my sarcastic flippancy was off the mark in this particular case from nearly a decade ago.

I keep forgetting the tendency of the left to do the whole "I was for the war before I was against the war" thing.

Teflor Lyorian wrote:

Ragorn wrote:

Teflor Lyorian wrote:

Ragorn wrote:Sounds like he's got 60 days. If we're not out in 60 days, then I call shenanigans.

It didn't take you sixty days to call it on Bush.

Actually, if you check my post history, it wasn't until well into the Iraq engagement that I turned against the war. I gave Bush considerably longer than 60 days, I gave him about 18 months. Good try on the selective memory though.

Here, I found you one from March 2003 where I was making fun of people protesting the war: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10725

Free bonus in that thread: Sarvis agreeing with me.

My bad, my sarcastic flippancy was off the mark in this particular case from nearly a decade ago.

I keep forgetting the tendency of the left to do the whole "I was for the war before I was against the war" thing.

And I keep forgetting the tendency of the right to do the whole "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing.

I, along with most of the free-thinking liberals in the country, supported the war right up until we found that the intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD capability was falsified. When we discovered that the Republican war machine was lying to us, they lost our support... unlike the right wing, who supported Bush's war with or without facts, and is equally happy to condemn Obama's actions under the same circumstances. Typical conservative partisan hypocrisy.

Except the intelligence wasn't falsified, the conclusions based on the evidence made by both the US and the UN team were merely incorrect.

Free thinking? Sure, if you count making stuff up about things being falsified.

Quotes from Democrat party leaders on Iraq wmds after lunch.